LOL @ anyone who takes life seriously

[Matt C]

Follow logic, reason, and science to formulate the decisions in your life, and never emotion.  Even though emotion IS right SOME of the time, it is by and large not right MOST of the time.  Ever since I decided to only apply rigid logic to the decisions I make, I've found that things go much better for me.

No one is saying that science is perfect, simply that it is the BEST and MOST accurate system we have.  Even if you were to say science is riddled with flaws, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - I'd simply point out that ANY other system has even MORE flaws.  That's my point.

Also, is this the picture that jr posted?  If so, that is a very good flowchart!

[Matt C]

Yeah, see...the problem with that is there is more proof from legit archeological findings (yes, by secular archeologists) that match the books of the Bible.....science can't say that.

Well...no, but...ok.

[joelocal]

Follow logic, reason, and science to formulate the decisions in your life, and never emotion.  Even though emotion IS right SOME of the time, it is by and large not right MOST of the time.  Ever since I decided to only apply rigid logic to the decisions I make, I've found that things go much better for me.

No one is saying that science is perfect, simply that it is the BEST and MOST accurate system we have.  Even if you were to say science is riddled with flaws, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - I'd simply point out that ANY other system has even MORE flaws.  That's my point.

Also, is this the picture that jr posted?  If so, that is a very good flowchart!

It was also science that proved not only the bible was true, but accurate as well for what was found. Matt, I can pull up all kinds of science that back the bible. Do you really think there is no scientific research being done??

All you have is are scientists that try to DISPROVE what they cannot figure out.

[Matt C]

It was also science that proved not only the bible was true, but accurate as well for what was found. Matt, I can pull up all kinds of science that back the bible. Do you really think there is no scientific research being done??

All you have is are scientists that try to DISPROVE what they cannot figure out.

It's hard for me to debate your original assertion = "making shit up" (the bible), by bringing in new pieces of evidence to strengthen your case by = "making more shit up". 

It's kind of like debating TA. 

[joelocal]

It's hard for me to debate your original assertion = "making shit up" (the bible), by bringing in new pieces of evidence to strengthen your case by = "making more shit up". 

It's kind of like debating TA. 

This is just the beginning, there's alot more.......



The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dogbowl]

It was also science that proved not only the bible was true, but accurate as well for what was found. Matt, I can pull up all kinds of science that back the bible.

The Scientific Method : Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Creationist Method : Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

[Matt C]

Post more please.

[joelocal]

The Scientific Method : Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Creationist Method : Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

Archeological findings that match the people and dates of the bible are not facts

[dogbowl]

Archeological findings that match the people and dates of the bible are not facts

the people who follow your sort of reasoning can't be trusted.  they're the same people who say that the word "day" in the bible is of course metaphorical and actually referred to a period of 2 billion years.

[Matt C]

Archeological findings that match the people and dates of the bible are not facts

Here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

The difference between you and I (and other freethinkers) is that I believe what the facts show are most likely to be true, whereas you believe what you want.  Then you try to grasp at whatever evidence you can to hold on to your beliefs.  I don't necessarily want to believe what I do - I only do so because it appears to be the most accurate given all of the data I have.

[gcb]

What are you people babbling about? A team of engineers built the universe from scratch in their lunch hour - I know one of the blokes from the pub.

[joelocal]

Post more please.

Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.

At a meeting of the religious leaders, Caiaphas said, "It is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish" (John 11:50). He was referring to the possible intervention of the Roman authorities, if Jesus' teaching should cause unrest. His words were prophetic in that Jesus did die for the people, all the people of the earth, as a sacrifice for sin.

 
Read the story of Christ's deathAfter He was arrested, Jesus was taken to Caiaphas' house and detained overnight. The guards mocked and beat Him (Luke 22:63-65). In the morning He was interrogated and further beaten. Caiaphas asked Him, "Are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," Jesus replied (Mark 14:61-62). Caiaphas then handed Jesus over to Pilate to be tried.

Following Jesus' crucifixion, Caiaphas continued to persecute the early church. He brought the apostles before the religious leaders and said to them, "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's (Jesus') blood." Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather then men" (Acts 5:28-29).

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

[joelocal]

the people who follow your sort of reasoning can't be trusted.  they're the same people who say that the word "day" in the bible is of course metaphorical and actually referred to a period of 2 billion years.

Alot of the finding were made by secular archeologists......not Christian.

[benz]

i believe in the BIG ANAL BANG theory

[joelocal]

Here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

The difference between you and I (and other freethinkers) is that I believe what the facts show are most likely to be true, whereas you believe what you want.  Then you try to grasp at whatever evidence you can to hold on to your beliefs.  I don't necessarily want to believe what I do - I only do so because it appears to be the most accurate given all of the data I have.

I can do that too Matt.....

http://www.khouse.org/topical_bible_study/archeology/


http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

[benz]

I can do that too Matt.....

http://www.khouse.org/topical_bible_study/archeology/


http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

JOELOCO HY!

[BIG DUB]

the people who follow your sort of reasoning can't be trusted.  they're the same people who say that the word "day" in the bible is of course metaphorical and actually referred to a period of 2 billion years.

a thousand

[figgs]

Science is not only immensely immature, it's practically irrelevant for understanding the nature of the universe. Science can arguably only be the clear and defined and logical information about nature as can be translated by mere monkies.

EXPERIENCE is the only means of understanding the true nature of the universe. We are part of the whole universe and are bits of it experiencing itself subjectively. A part limited in time and space. Consciousness imprisons us within our own 6 senses and human behavior does the rest, denying that anything else exists beyond.

How do we experience oneness with the universe? Death, drugs and deep meditation.

There's a yellow/white chrystal called DMT (dimethyltryptamine: a chemical that exists in all ecosystems on Earth and our brains naturally produce to induce the psychedelic state we know as dreaming) that you can smoke. This drug will not take you to an altered state of consciousness; the type that accompanies the usual drug experience. You will not feel like you're in another state of mind or even feel like you are in another dimension. You will be in another dimension. The experience itself is all the proof you'll need.

Take it away, Joe.

DMT art



Hey, why not take a tour of the macro/micro universe to expand upon what you think you know about it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6069694823095720874&q=unity+of+being&total=520&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[G o a t b o y]

The Bible is obviously a fairy tale for children...  your average 5-year-old could see through it...  yet for some reason millions of supposed "grown adults" view it as literal truth.

If you want to believe in a supreme being, fine, but at least take the somewhat rational position that the science is correct but that "God" is behind it, creating the universe using natural processes and the physical laws of the universe as we know them to be rather that accepting obvious myths simply because they're written down in some moldy 2000-year-old book.

[Matt C]

The Bible is obviously a fairy tale for children...  your average 5-year-old could see through it...  yet for some reason millions of supposed "grown adults" view it as literal truth.

If you want to believe in a supreme being, fine, but at least take the somewhat rational position that the science is correct but that "God" is behind it, creating the universe using natural processes and the physical laws of the universe as we know them to be rather that accepting obvious myths simply because they're written down in some moldy 2000-year-old book.

Like Spinoza's version of god?  Hey, if I say god is everywhere no one will know I'm an atheist right? 

[G o a t b o y]

Like Spinoza's version of god?  Hey, if I say god is everywhere no one will know I'm an atheist right? 

I don't personally believe in a deity, but since most educated Americans (fundamentalists need not apply) accept the legitamacy of scientific knowledge yet many are also Christian, their belief systems are much like that.  Only fundies believe in a literal creation story, and although they tend to be the ones screaming the loudest and making the news through their stupidity, they really are the minority of US christians.  Fundies are as dumb as dirt!

[freespirit]

The yellow frog is God.

God manifests in all that lives.   

[Spoony Luv]

"Big bang" theorie my ass......much too complex for there NOT to be a Creator!!

well duh...The big bang was when "god" banged a fat chick in the ass...How does it make you feel Joe that you are just gods fat hook ups ass playdoe...

[figgs]

Follow logic, reason, and science to formulate the decisions in your life, and never emotion.  Even though emotion IS right SOME of the time, it is by and large not right MOST of the time.  Ever since I decided to only apply rigid logic to the decisions I make, I've found that things go much better for me.

No one is saying that science is perfect, simply that it is the BEST and MOST accurate system we have.  Even if you were to say science is riddled with flaws, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - I'd simply point out that ANY other system has even MORE flaws.  That's my point.

Also, is this the picture that jr posted?  If so, that is a very good flowchart!

Wiki:
Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. As a relatively new area of psychological research, the definition of EI is constantly changing.

[Matt C]

Wiki:
Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. As a relatively new area of psychological research, the definition of EI is constantly changing.

I'll put it to you this way: I get along with everyone as well as anyone possibly can.  If there is someone that *I* can't get along with, I highly doubt the ability of anyone to be able to do so.

There would be no way reasoning with joelocal.  If there was a way to reason with him, rest assured, I would be able to do so.